2011/2/9 Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info>:
> Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>>> If a consensus were to emerge, it would still be possible to change the
>> name from "__pycache__" to ".pycache".
>> -1.
>> Please don't encourage the Unix anti-pattern of scattering invisible
> breadcrumbs all throughout your work-area.
>> Besides, unless I'm misinformed, such dot files aren't invisible in Windows
> systems (or Mac?), so the fundamental assumption that changing the name will
> make it invisible will be wrong for many, perhaps most, users.
Yes, I did think about that afterwards.
> I don't particularly like the name __pycache__ but it does match the Python
> convention of using double-underscore names. Otherwise, it risks clashing
> with a user's own directory. I *far* prefer it over .pycache.
"dunder" naming is a Python convention and is OK for Python code. Even
though I am not a big fan of the __init__.py file, at least the user
created it for his python package to be seen. Whereas __pycache__
conveys the idea that it is has a special meaning (such as
__init__.py) and suggests it may alter your application's behavior,
which does not.
Just nitpicking, I guess. So I remove my +1 for the ".pycache" idea
(for the reason that being hidden is platform specific) and my call is
now +0.
--
Alex | twitter.com/alexconrad